An article in Ohio.com (Akron Beacon Journal) brought to light again the challenge we are having in the Church of God validating the ministry and leadership of women.
The good news is that Arlington Church of God, one of our prominent congregations, announced that Diana Swoope has been chosen to succeed Ron Fowler when he retires in the coming months. Beyond her local church, Swoope is well-known across the Church of God because of her national involvements and powerful preaching.
The newspaper article addresses the fact that women are having a harder time finding a church to pastor in the Church of God. Just over 10% of our senior pastors are women, a figure even more troubling considering the fact that at the beginning of our movement women had a much larger role. Unfortunately, again we've been influenced by the larger church culture around us, even when it conflicts with what we understand Scripture to teach. Sadly, many of our congregations resist the idea of having a female pastor, and even some of our current ordained ministers do not believe women should be in this role.
I celebrate the affirmation of Diana Swoope in Akron, Ohio, and hope that this will lead to more women called to career ministry finding their place in our congregations.
The good news is that Arlington Church of God, one of our prominent congregations, announced that Diana Swoope has been chosen to succeed Ron Fowler when he retires in the coming months. Beyond her local church, Swoope is well-known across the Church of God because of her national involvements and powerful preaching.
The newspaper article addresses the fact that women are having a harder time finding a church to pastor in the Church of God. Just over 10% of our senior pastors are women, a figure even more troubling considering the fact that at the beginning of our movement women had a much larger role. Unfortunately, again we've been influenced by the larger church culture around us, even when it conflicts with what we understand Scripture to teach. Sadly, many of our congregations resist the idea of having a female pastor, and even some of our current ordained ministers do not believe women should be in this role.
I celebrate the affirmation of Diana Swoope in Akron, Ohio, and hope that this will lead to more women called to career ministry finding their place in our congregations.
28 comments:
Ron Fowler is a valued friend, but I applaud Arlington's recognition of Diana Swoope. I support your affirmation.
It is interesting to me that numbers of our folk do not "understand" that women played such a strong role in our early history.
One very active layman asked me why that continued to be such an issue in the Church of God; he attributed it to the feminists among us, which is not really the case at all.
Wayne
There can be no doubt that women played an important role in the beginning of the Church of God movement. They also played an important part of the beginning of the Church itself. However, as far as a Biblical basis for a woman to be the senior pastor of a church there is no Biblical support whatsoever.
The story of Deborah makes it clear that it is dishonoring to men to allow a woman to be the leader. In other words, men should be ashamed that a woman was chosen to lead them. This is the same point Paul made in 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul even makes the point that women should be silent in church in 1 Timothy 2:11 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 calling it disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.
Of course, there are those who, because of their modern political views, would claim that those verses do not apply to them because of some reasoning or another, but this is the same argument made by all persons who do not like what the scriptures say about their particular political point of view. Homosexuals are a case in point. They do not like the fact that scriptures specifically state that homosexuality is a sin, so they claim it does not apply and state specious reasoning for this viewpoint.
Do I here equate women in ministry with the sin of homosexuality? No, it is clear in scripture that women can and should play a supporting role in the ministry of the church. However, my point is this. Scriptures specifically deny the office of senior leadership to women. The Church of God wants to claim that these scriptures do not apply, because if the Church of God applied them correctly, they might offend someone. They forget that God's word is by nature offensive. (Jeremiah 6:10)
Ironically, by their not following God's word they become offensive not only to the church but to the world as well. The world is not stupid. They understand all too well that the "church" is not what it should be and that the "church" does not follow its own self-proclaimed guidelines.
"Anonymous",
I'm not even sure you are part of our movement. Nevertheless, I certainly cannot agree with your interpretation of Scripture. As far as being offensive is concerned, both in the Early Church and during the early years of the Church of God women in ministry was very offensive to the surrounding culture, which is in keeping to the radical nature of the Gospel. Sadly, the Evangelical church at-large today has bought into the prevailing worldly attitudes that continue to dominate our society, and consequently reads Scripture through those filters on such issues.
As far as being a part of the "movement," I guess I would be if the Church of God actually moved. Irregardless, I am an ordained minister in the Church of God. Why? Because, while not perfect, it is the closest to what the Church should be.
As for the other comments, I guess it is pretty easy for me to look at the Bible and take it for what it says. I tend not to put spin on the scriptures. I was taught to take the scriptures for what they say and change myself to fit them, instead of making the scriptures say what I want them to say.
I would be interested in knowing what scriptures you use to believe that women should be senior pastors.
Also, if you wouldn't mind enlightening me on the "filter" I am using to the following scipture:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." I Timothy 2:11-12
It would seem to me to be clear, but if I am filtering this to say something it doesn't, I am completely open to realizing my error.
One last thing: The prevailing worldly attitude about women is that they should have more power and more freedoms than men. Men are continually degraded by the media, and women are portrayed as the superior but downtrodden sex. So, how can the church be following this attitude by not allowing women into senior pastor roles? It would seem to me that the church is "bucking the system."
Thanks.
I've been taught never to read any criticism that is not signed. The moniker of "anonymous" doesn't give witness to the boldness of your convictions.
Nice try Curtis, but I get ostracized enough without getting eaten alive by the CHOG leaders for my view on this. I am not trying to be bold. I am simply trying to understand the unbiblical stance of the Church of God on this issue.
Reading the surprising discussion, especially the negative spin of anonymous, I did not see anonymous offer any scriptural proof that specifies no female senior pastors. Fact is,it might be easier to biblically prove there should be no such thing as a senior pastor. I do not recall any biblical references to such. I do remember that that kind of reasoning was once used to disprove the correctness of conducting Sunday Schools. Wayne
Hi Wayne,
You need to realize that I am not here to cause a fight or to be argumentative. I am simply trying to "understand" why the Church of God believes what they do. There seems to be no Biblical evidence which would support the belief that a woman should be allowed into the senior pastor role, while there is ample evidence that that position should be denied to them.
The Bible is supposed to be our rule of faith, yet we completely ignore what it says on this issue. Why?
You claim I don't specify any scriptures, but I did - the story of Deborah (Judges 4, specifically verse 9); 1 Tim 2:11-12; and 1 Cor 14:34-35. You can play semantics all you want, and you can attack the straw man you built, but it still doesn't refute the fact that the Bible states specifically that a woman should never be in a position of authority over a man.
I realize that the words "senior pastor" don't appear in the Bible, but the position is there none-the-less. And women are denied access to this position.
I find it interesting that nobody denies that the scriptures say this. It seems like everyone just wants me to shut up and stop throwing the Bible into their face. If that is what you want, then just say so, and I will leave you to your delusions.
But if you want dialogue, then let's dialogue. I thought this site was dedicated to "constructive discussion related to our theology and mission."
I laid out my thoughts and gave you the scriptures on which they were based; but I have yet to see a single verse of scripture that allows for what the Church of God wants - more women in senior pastor positions. Without that scripture, the Church of God is in violation of God's word in 1 Tim 2:11-12.
Will the tradition of the Church of God trump God's word? I certainly hope not, but frankly, it would not be the first time.
So, give me some scripture. What does God say on the issue? If I am supposed to support this, I want a scriptural basis to do so, and I cannot find any. I am waiting, begging to be converted, but you are going to have to do better than "that's the way we've always done it."
He Who Shall Not Be Named has requested scripture supporting women in ministry. I will point out a few to chew on. Before I do, I would recommend the book “Community 101” by Gilbert Bilezikian which offers a several scripturally based arguments for women in ministry. By the way, Bilezikian is NOT Church of God, (Anderson, IN).
In Acts 2:16-18 Peter quotes from Joel and declares that the Holy Spirit will fall on male and female enabling them to prophesy – proclaim the truth of God, or speak for God.
In Galatians 3:16-29 Paul says that we are all part of the same body, and as a result all “sons of God” - both male and female.
I Corinthians 11:5 talks about a woman praying and prophesying – and not prohibiting it, just describing the customs of modesty that should be observed when it happens.
Romans 16:1 indicates that Phoebe was a deaconess in the church – a leader. Phillip’s daughters were prophets – speakers for God (Acts 21:8-9). Miriam was a prophet and leader in the Old Testament.
As a rebuttal, if we were to take individual scriptures without the light from other scriptures we would: only have married men who were pastors (1 Timothy 3:2-4), only have bald ministers (1 Corinthians 11:3-10), women would wear hair coverings in church (Same passage), and only women who had children could be saved (1 Timothy 2:15).
Finally, all authority in the church resides in Christ. Pastoral authority does not reside in a gender but in the Word of God. I do not submit myself to the “powers that be” simply because of their title nor their gender. I submit as they lead according to the Word of God, the whole Word. The authority resides in the Word of God and the person of Christ. It is His to gift and call as He sees fit.
Hi Curtiss,
Thank you for actually giving me some scriptures. Unfortunately, you addressed an issue that is not in question.
It is well documented scripturally that women have a Biblical basis for serving as supporting ministers - youth ministry, women's ministry, music ministry, even evangelistic ministry. However, the question is this: is there any Biblical basis for a woman to be the head of a church, i.e. the senior pastor?
Your rebuttal comments are interesting, but they would require several threads to address. I think I will stick to one controversial topic at a time, so I won't address those.
You are correct that we must take the whole of scripture when forming a doctrinal stance, so what do we do with 1 Tim 2:11-12? We cannot just ignore it because it doesn't fit with what we want scripture to say.
You are also right that Jesus is the final authority. I just don't see in the Bible where He placed a woman as the head of a church. The only time a woman was the head was Deborah, and that was because Barak refused to lead. Is that where we are as a movement? The men won't lead, so the women have to?
Anonymous,
Are you saying that women could fill those other roles as long as there are no men in the audience? Should a woman minister to everyone but men? Must she stop teaching the Word when a man enters the room?
Was Paul saying in one place that a woman should keep silent, and in another place "if she prophesies, she should keep her head covered"? Why the contradiction? Is it possible that Paul was speaking to Timothy in reference to specific cultures or cities (i.e. Ephesus)?
Your use of the Old Testament case of Deborah indicates that she was appointed by God under His permissive will, if not His perfect will. That seems to indicate that you believe there are some times when women should be in leadership, under the permissive will of God. So God has not banned women from leadership roles.
If God was opposed to women leaders, why would He appoint a woman leader, even under His permissive will? Why would He not let a people remain leaderless?
You repeatedly used the phrase "head of a church". Isn't Christ THE head of THE church and everyone else members of one body - even the senior pastor? Are there classes of members in the body? Are we not all called to minister the good news of Jesus to everyone we meet. Or are only some of us allowed to minister to certain individuals? Are some of us forbidden to share the good news with certain types of people? Are the gifts of administration and leadership reserved for the male gender alone?
It seems to me, your argument is “which human should have control of the local church”? Is that position ignoring the fact that Christ is the head and we are to be guided, together, by the Holy Spirit, which is poured out on all flesh, both men and women?
Curtiss,
It is not a matter of who is in the audience nor a matter of control, but rather, who has been given authority by Christ. From the very beginning woman was made as helper or assistant to man. Paul reinforces this idea with the writing on the covering of a woman's head, the thought being that a woman has authority over her at all times because of her place in creation. As Paul puts it I Cor 11 - Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. Paul goes on to write that the covering of the head is the symbol of the fact that she is by nature under authority. From the very beginning God has created a hierarchy within His kingdom, and women are not at the top of it - Christ first, then man, then woman. Therefore, yes a woman can serve in a supporting role, but Biblically not as the head. (Of course, Christ is the head of the Church, but we are speaking of the local congregation or even the movement as a whole, not the Church as a body of believers throughout the world.)
While it is possible that Paul was speaking to a specific culture, I don't buy that argument in the light of its being used to discredit scriptures we don't like. It is the same "that doesn't apply today" philosophy that many use to excuse their actions and make them appear Biblically acceptable. If we believe that "all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (I Tim 3:16) then we must conclude that we cannot discount any scripture as no longer applicable unless God, Himself, made it so in the scriptures (as He did with the law of the Old Testament). Since I don't find anywhere in scripture where God overturns the hierarchical nature of the church and allows women to be in authority, one has to continue to include I Tim 2:11-12 into the doctrine of women in ministry. That being the case, women should serve in a supporting role only. This would be the only way I see to harmonize the seeming contradiction of scriptures.
Your idea of God's permissive will is an interesting one, although I don't think there is a time when a woman "should" be the senior pastor of a church. I think there are times when God allows it, i.e. when men won't serve, a woman will be allowed to serve to the shame of the men. Biblically, God used many different leaders (even sinful ones) to shame His people back into alignment with His word, so I would think that at some point God would permit a woman to be the head, although it would not be His perfect plan, just as God allowed the Israelites to have a king when they rejected His plan. God allows us our choices, even if they are against His will and His word. I think it is a sign of something seriously wrong when God allows a church to choose to follow a woman.
Are we all supposed to minister? Of course! But is there a limit to the scope of a woman's ministry. I believe that Biblically there is. Does this diminish the importance of that woman's ministry? I don't think so. The gifts of administration and leadership and even pastoring do not have to be exhibited in a senior pastor postion. These gifts are used very well and often better in a supportive role. In fact, I think that a woman ministering within the parameters set out by scripture is a powerful and important part of the Church.
Anonymous said "I don't find anywhere in scripture where God overturns the hierarchical nature of the church and allows women to be in authority,".
Considering all of the scriptures on the subject, and the qualifiers that balance the issue, I see no place where God specifically establishes the hierarchy of a male over a female.
The debate over the hierarchical order between men and women is highly debateable, and probably irreconcilable. Those,like anonymous, who believe in it filter everything through that lens. Others of us filter the lens from the view of equality.
In the main, however, the Church of God RM finds the gospel and the dispensation of the Holy Spirit as the great equalizer, under Him Who is The Head.It was so at Pentecost; it is so in the body language of Paul. The old inequities so long accepted are no longer valid--neither Gentile nor Jew, neither free nor slave, et al. Wayne
Wayne,
You said, "I see no place where God specifically establishes the hierarchy of a male over a female."
What about 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:11-12; Eph 5:22-24; Gen 3:16? If these scriptures do not establish that there is an order and a hierarchy then what will? There are a many other hierarchies in scripture: the master / servant hierarchy; the slave / free hierarchy; the saved / unsaved hierarchy. Face it - God's Kingdom is hierarchical. This is a Monarchy not a Democracy. You don't get a vote.
Frankly, your filtering with the lens of "equality" in ministry is an American idea, not a Biblical one. The idea in Gal 3:28 is not one of equality in ministry. It is one of equality in inheritance, i.e. all are now equal in inheriting eternal life, all are now heirs. Read Gal 3:29! You take it way out of context to apply it to ministry positions and structure. On the other hand, 1 Tim 2:11-12 is centered in a discourse on what is appropriate in ministry and the structure of ministry, yet you wish to discount its application to ministry positions entirely.
You wish to brand me as a radical because I filter everything through God's word. So be it. I can accept that, but frankly, isn't that what a Christian is supposed to do? On what scriptures do you base your beliefs? You have not named a single one; however, you have consistently based your beliefs on the CHOG traditions. Are they really that strong?
This debate is only irreconcilable if one side refuses to accept the Bible as inerrant. That is the only logical conclusion of your belief system - certain Bible verses are simply wrong.
I guess I cannot convince you to actually take the scriptures for what they say. That is between you and the Lord. But the Church of God is in real trouble when its leaders decide the Bible is not good enough, and they know better than God how to do things.
the bible is good enough, friend anonymous, and I have no wish or need to demonize you. The world is too full of that now.I profoundly disagree with your hierarchical structure. It may be an American idea, but it was a biblical idea first. For this post I will use but one illustration, Paul and Philemon. Paul never confronted slavery head on, as we are prone to do. But, in his practice of his theology, he articulated a principle of equality that we see throughout his body language. Every part of the body is subject to the head. The body remains healthy as long as every body-part functions properly, in relation to the head.Paul appealed to Philemon to accept Onesimus as a freedman. The gospel makes the exception the rule.It was true of slaves, of Greeks and Gentiles, of male and females, if you will. And I do believe that the empowering of the Holy Spirit upon male and female(an act of God) takes more precedence than the reference of Debra.
One last thing: you make a very false assumption. I cannot speak for the feminist movement et al, but biblically speaking, all women want is equality; they do not seek a superior role. That is a ploy of threatened males, unwilling to give up their carnal predominence.
Wayne
Anonymous: I refer you to the following online issue, where some of the pros and cons of this issue are being discussed by a group that is more traditionally in line with your thinking. Wayne
August 24, 2008
Looking Again at
Women in Leadership
Greetings!
One reader who received an advance copy of the August 24 CHRISTIAN STANDARD sent us a tongue-in-cheek e-mail. "Looking again at women in leadership?" he wrote. "I didn't know we HAD any women in leadership!"
We know he was kidding. (Women direct significant sections of his ministry.) We also know that this subject stirs all kind of reactions from men and women alike. We've begun receiving them after publishing a summary of two primary views on the subject last week.
This week, three more writers weigh-in. One tells us the process by which his congregation decided how they would-and would not-use women leaders in their church. Another reminds us to be careful about Bible translation, and a third asserts that physiological differences between men and women should influence how they serve.
Meanwhile, as always, we recommend our bloggers. This week Jennifer Taylor, after reading our August 17 issue, adds her conclusions.
We're glad to hear yours too. See our Web site for letters already sent to the editor. We encourage you to add yours.
--Mark A. Taylor, Editor
Hi Wayne,
I couldn't find the page you sent me to. Do you have a URL?
I'm not really sure how you were intending to apply Philemon to the discussion. I think you were trying to say that because Paul wrote to get Philemon to free Onesimus, Paul by inference also overturned the hierarchy of male over female. Let me know if I missed your point.
The body language of Paul does indeed point to the fact that we are all part of one body; however, in 1 Cor 12 (verses 21-25) he describes how some parts are more presentable than others and some parts are more honorable than others. He even goes on to set up a hierarchy in the spiritual gifts in verse 28. Then again, in Eph 4 Paul states that there is one body, while in Eph 5 he puts a hierarchy into that body - Christ, Husband, then Wife.
I realize that women want equality, but is that even possible. I mean is it possible for any man to be the equal of a woman or any woman to be the equal of a man. Its like comparing apples and oranges. While they are both fruit, can anyone really say that they are equally tasty.
Although I'm not really ready to accept it as truth, I have heard some people claim that part of Eve's sin in the garden was coveting Adam's place in the order of things. Of course, I will admit that these people were also making the claim that women should have no place in ministry at all - a position I feel is also unbiblical.
I guess the thing that really bothers me is not so much that the Church of God believes that women should be senior pastors (they have believed that for as long as they have existed, it seems), it is more that the leaders cannot give a clear Biblical statement on how the differing scriptures are to be harmonized. They really only give you inference and supposition, which is not good Biblical interpretation in my opinion. They also completely ignore the scriptures which disagree with their inferences, often very directly (1 Tim 2-12 and 1 Cor 11 most notably). This whole idea would sit better with me if they would just reconcile at least those two scriptures with the doctrine.
To Anonymous:
I am sure this is an exercise in fultility and will conclude my part with this comment.
(1)email me at kitway@sbcglobal.net and I will try to forward my copy of standard online. I respect these people greatly, while disagreeing on some issues (and I know they are also having some struggles with this issue).
As for Philemon, I find Paul affirming a non-hierarchical equality.
The Chog has taken its stand on Scripture with Christ being the Living Word (relational)rather than in the technical legality of the written word (creedal). In that context, I find Scripture not defining every detail, but leaving us open to have opposing views on occasion, yet brothers in relational faith in Him Who is Life.
And, I'll leave it there. Wayne
Wayne,
We will agree to disagree and both believe in Jesus as Lord!
Have a good day!
Woah...that was interesting...
I am a little late getting to this discussion. I have been teaching two intensive classes on homiletics and have not looked at CHOG Blog in a couple of weeks. As a matter of full disclosure, several of these students are women and they are preparing for ministry and for preaching.
I do have one question for anonymous. You seem strongly fixated on the inability of a women to be the senior pastor or the one in charge. Is there such a position in the N.T.? I am unaware of the notion of Senior Pastor in the N.T. or of support positions such as Youth Minister or Children's Pastor, etc.
I am aware of Priscilla as a women preacher and of Junia as an apostle. I am also aware of E.M. Kim's argument that if N.T. preaching requires that one preach the kerygma (the death and resurrection of Christ) then the first preachers of the N.T. kerygma were the women to whom the Resurrection first was revealed and who went and told the men (who then did not understand or believe, with the possible exception of John). Such examples seem to fly in the face of more culturally based notions as Paul's concern in Timothy and Ephesians.
Oh, and one more thing. Are women saved through child bearing? I thought salvation came through faith not works; by the grace of God not the actions of human beings? Just a thought.
I would suggest that all of you read "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Belzekian. It is a great text on the subject.
Hi PJ,
I will get to your comments in a moment.
For now, I wanted to note that it is interesting that when one takes an opposing view to the doctrinal credo of the CHOG leaders you are immediately labelled. While the comments here may not have been specifically directed at me, the labels were certainly directed toward me and with the not-so-veiled goal of lumping me in with those labels. I have been associated with labels such as "non-Church of God," "worldly," "filtering," "not bold," "negative," "un-scriptural," "illogical," "He Who Shall Not Be Named (my personal favorite! I may make that my blog name!), "controlling," "threatened," "carnal," "predominant," and now "fixated." Is there any reason why I would feel safe to disagree if my identity were known?
Upon reading my own comments I realize now that some of Wayne's comments really got under my skin, and I did not respond too kindly myself. I apologize Wayne. Please forgive me.
Ok, back to PJ.
First, let me say that there have been a lot of rabbit trails proposed to take us off topic, but I would rather stay on the one subject. So, I will not address the idea of a woman's salvation. That will have to keep for another thread.
Also, let me point out that I have already conceded that there is no specific place in scripture which defines a senior pastor role. There are only the positions which were held - Timothy in Ephesus; Titus in Crete; Peter in Jerusalem. These were all clearly senior pastor positions. You may claim that I am inferring a position here, and that is true. However, I am not condemning the practice of inference into scripture. This practice is prevalent, although not without problems, and we would much rather have specific instruction. On the other hand, I am condemning the practice of inference toward an idea to the direct contradiction of specific instruction, which is what I think the Church of God is doing on this issue.
The thought that Priscilla was anything but a helper to Aquilla is not scripturally sound. None of the scriptures which mention her state that she ever preached, at least none that I could find. (Although, you should realize that I am not arguing against women preachers nor against women in leadership. I am arguing against women in the senior leadership and in authority over men. See my earlier posts.)
The idea that Junia(s) was even a woman is not without controversy; however, we will assume that this person was a woman. That verse in Rom 16:7 does infer the idea of a woman in an apostleship role, but is that the same as a senior pastor, i.e. the gift of pastorship? The accepted idea of an apostle is more that of a missionary rather than a pastor. Even if one accepts that they are the same, you are still left with an inference that this removes the senior pastor barrier to women. You are also left with the contradiction in I Tim 4:11-12.
To dismiss this scripture as culturally irrelevant is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. One could easily take that same attitude toward any scritpure that didn't fit with your preconceived view. Soon, there would not be much left of scriptural truth.
Woops! That's I Tim 2:11-12.
Thanks for replying. Two things jump out at me from your response. First, and I say this respectfully and not pejoratively, you completely dismissed the issue of women saved through child bearing as a separate issue. However, it is in the context of the passage you cite at the end and have held onto as one of the strong factors in your argument. As you are worried about taking scripture as culturally irrelevant (which was not my argument but solely a foreshadowing of the arguments about scriptural texts being written to real people at a real time and place with factors related to its cultural context) so I am equally worried about taking scriptures out of their biblical context. If I Timothy 2:15 is separate from I Timothy 2:11-12 than I am worried that, "One could easily take that same attitude toward any scritpure that didn't fit with your preconceived view. Soon, there would not be much left of scriptural truth" to quote a wise man.
Second, you make some very sweeping statements that don't seem to hold as definitive a quality as you place in them. For instance, you cite no scriptural evidence for Priscilla being the "lead pastor" and she was only a helper to Aquila. I would refer you to Luke's literary device in Acts 13 where, in vs. 2 and 4 the order of the team (Barnabas and Saul) denotes the hierarchy of their relationship (Barnabas the leader and Saul the follower). In vs. 13 the order changes (Paul and company) and for the remainder of their partnership is it always Paul and Barnabas (see vs. 42ff). Applying that to Priscilla and Aquila, you are introduced to them in Acts 18:2 as Aquila and his wife, Priscilla. After that, the other seven references to them list Priscilla first (with the exception of the greetings section at the end of Romans, a more formal presentation than the greetings sections of I Corinthians and II Timothy). If Paul is the leader of he and Barnabas, then so is Priscilla of she and her husband.
Another example of a sweeping statement is that apostle is to be equated with missionary rather than senior pastor. I think that the apostles were the unquestioned leaders of the church in Jerusalem. While they all did what we would call missionary work, they all certainly held positions of high leadership in any church situation they found themselves in, from Jerusalem to the Diaspora to the founding of churches. Paul, an apostle, did missionary work but when he stayed in one place, as in Ephesus, he became the "senior pastor" of that congregation. Also, I have a strong sense that anyone reading your statements who serves as a missionary might argue that being a missionary or the leader, i.e. head pastor, of a congregation are not mutually exclusive of one another.
I do accept and acknowledge your understanding that Junia may be a male name rather than a female name. There is much debate. In the same vein I would argue that, as some posts here have shown, there is much in debate about Paul's statement in I Timothy 2:11-15. All I am hoping for is that, in the midst of disagreement, we might look at the total context of scripture and not of only a part.
I would like to throw in here something for submission to the discussion. N.T.Wright has a paper on this topic that I think speaks to all of the verses mentioned by Anon. http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/wright_biblical_basis.pdf
To quote him about the I Tim 2 verses he says, "The key to understanding the present
passage, then, is to recognize that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing
so (v. 11). They are to be “in full submission”; this is often taken to mean “to the men,” or “to their husbands,”
but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel—which of course would be the same attitude required of male learners. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”—the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority
over women.” Why might Paul need to say this?
There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the primary religion—the biggest temple, the most famous shrine—was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.
Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, such that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis cult, but rather so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving them."
Read the whole thing. It is pretty interesting.
That link is incomplete, but I think I found it.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/
wright_biblical_basis.pdf
Jonathan,
Thanks for that input. It was a very interesting article on the subject. I liked how he put the subject into context, and he addressed the idea of "women's salvation through childbearing" very well.
PJ - You should read the article for that alone. I don't think I could do better as far as contextualizing the passage.
Mr. Wright does an excellent job of handling those verses which I have presented here without avoiding their implications (which is what I have been asking for). While he does insert some obvious assumptions, they are at least plausible and as historically accurate as can be expected.
One last thought - isn't it contradictory to say that "women can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving them" (page 5 bottom of right column) and then translate I Tim 2:12 as "I'm not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed" (page 6 bottom left column)?
All in all, we will probably not get any closer to settling this, so I am going to be satisfied with it. Thanks for the discussion guys! (and gals?)
Post a Comment